Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already convey readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it never enables radios beyond default suite-presence, is not a login mesh, excludes Views/MCP/downloads from QNM-S, and clarifies it is not MASTER-33 nor a second Softwares door. These details go well beyond the annotations and prevent misinference about side effects or identity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is information-dense but sprawling and repetitive: 'Read-only' and 'not' disclaimers recur multiple times, and many architecture caveats are packed into one unbroken paragraph. It is front-loaded with field definitions and distincts from node roster, but the later material could be tightened without losing meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only rollup with an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, how counts are defined, which siblings to choose instead, and its behavioral constraints. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly, including the cite string and exclusion semantics.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema explicitly documents 'No arguments. Send {}.' With no parameters to explain, the baseline of 4 applies; the description sensibly focuses on return semantics rather than inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read QNM suite rollup totals' and immediately distinguishes the tool from the node roster ('— not the node roster'). It also names what each derived count means, so an agent can tell exactly which data this tool returns and that it differs from sibling tools like mesh_nodes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is made explicit: 'Use this when you need public Nodes..., Live Nodes..., or software_nodes...' followed by 'Do not use it for listing individual nodes, enabling extra radios, or executing a catalog engine; use mesh_nodes, mesh_enable, or fraggate_call instead.' This gives both positive and negative selection criteria and names concrete alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.